ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Application filed with the Inter-American Court of Human Rights In the case of Luisiana Ríos et al. (Case 12.441) against the Republic of Venezuela DELEGATES: Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro, Commissioner Santiago A. Canton, Executive Secretary Ignacio J. Álvarez, Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression ADVISERS: Elizabeth Abi-Mershed Débora Benchoam Lilly Ching Ariel E. Dulitzky Alejandra Gonza Silvia Serrano April 20, 2007 1889 F Street, N.W. Washington, D.C., 20006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 1 II. PURPOSE................................................................................................................ 1 III. REPRESENTATION ................................................................................................... 3 IV. JURISDICTION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT........................................................ 3 V. PROCESSING BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ................................................ 3 VI. FACTS...................................................................................................................11 A. The political situation and the context of intimidation of media workers................11 B. The Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) Network and employees who are the victims in the instant case..............................................................................13 C. Statements by the President of the Republic and other officials ...........................14 D. The first incidents in late 2001 and early 2002 .................................................18 E. Incidents in 2002 .........................................................................................20 F. Incidents in 2003 .........................................................................................28 G. Incidents in 2004 .........................................................................................30 H. The investigations.........................................................................................31 VII. LEGAL ARGUMENTS ...............................................................................................32 A. Preliminary considerations..............................................................................32 B. Violation of the right to freedom of thought and expression (Article 13 of the Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) ...........................................35 C. Violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5 of the Convention in connection with Article 1(1) thereof) ...............................................................48 D. Violation of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8 and 25 in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention) ..................................51 VIII. REPARATIONS AND COSTS .....................................................................................55 A. Obligation to make reparation.........................................................................56 B. Reparation measures.....................................................................................56 1. Compensation measures .....................................................................57 1.1. Pecuniary damages ............................................................................58 1.2. Non-pecuniary damages......................................................................58 2. Cessation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition..........................58 C. Beneficiaries ................................................................................................60 D. Costs and expenses......................................................................................60 IX. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................60 X. PETITION ...............................................................................................................61 Page XI. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE ..........................................................................................62 A. Documentary evidence ..................................................................................62 B. Witness testimony........................................................................................67 C. Expert testimony ..........................................................................................68 XII. PARTICULARS OF THE ORIGINAL PETITIONERS AND THE VICTIMS ..............................68 APPLICATION FILED BY THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS WITH THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST THE REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA CASE 12.441 LUISIANA RÍOS ET AL . I. INTRODUCTION 1. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission”, “the Commission” or “the IACHR”), submits to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Court”, “the Court”, or “the Tribunal”) an application in Case 12.441, Luisiana Ríos et al. , versus the Republic of Venezuela (hereinafter “the State”, “the Venezuelan State”, or “Venezuela”) alleging its international responsibility in connection with restrictions on freedom of expression through intimidation, acts of harassment, and physical and verbal abuse of Luisiana Ríos, Luis Augusto Contreras Alvarado, Eduardo Sapene Granier, Javier García, Isnardo Bravo, David Pérez Hansen, Wilmer Marcano, Winston Gutiérrez, Isabel Mavarez, Erika Paz, Samuel Sotomayor, Anahís Cruz, Herbigio Henríquez, Armando Amaya, Antonio José Monroy, Laura Castellanos, Argenis Uribe, Pedro Nikken, Noé Pernía, and Carlos Colmenares (hereinafter “the victims” or “the injured parties”); as well as its responsibility in connection with the subsequent lack of diligence in the investigation of those incidents and the omission of the State to adopt preventive measures. 2. All of the victims are journalists or employees of the media who are or have been connected with Radio Caracas Televisión network (hereinafter “RCTV”) and who in the performance of their work of seeking, receiving and imparting information, were the object of several acts of aggression, including wounding by gunfire and vandalism of RCTV facilities, between 2001 and 2004. The State, for its part, did not take the necessary measures to prevent the acts of harassment, and it failed to investigate and punish them with due diligence. 3. The Commission requests that the Court find that the Venezuelan State breached its international obligations by violating Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 13 (freedom of thought and expression), 8 (right to a fair trial), and 25 (right to judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the American Convention” or “the Convention”), in connection with the general obligation to respect and ensure human rights set forth in Article 1(1) of the Convention. 4. The Commission believes that the referral of the case to the Court is justified by the need to obtain justice and reparation for the injured parties. The facts in the case show that the RCTV journalists and related workers were unable to seek, receive, and impart information freely, and had to work under the intimidating effects of attacks designed to obstruct their exercise of freedom of thought and expression. In that sense, the Commission considers that the case represents an opportunity to develop the case law of the inter-American system with respect to limitations on the restrictions that state agents and private individuals may place on the exercise of freedom of expression through direct or indirect acts of obstruction and intimidation targeting media workers and related workers. In addition, it presents an opportunity to develop case law dealing with the guarantees that accompany the jobs performed by media workers, bearing in mind the contribution that their profession makes to healthy and informed public debate, an essential condition for democratic societies. II. PURPOSE 5. The instant case has been processed pursuant to the provisions of the American Convention and is submitted to the Court in accordance with Article 33 of its Rules of Procedure. A 2 copy of report 119/06, prepared under Article 50 of the Convention is attached as an appendix to this application. 1 The purpose of the instant application is respectfully to request the Court to find and declare that the Venezuelan State is responsible for violations: a. of the right to freedom of expression recognized in Article 13 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation to respect and ensure the human rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the victims; b. of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation to respect and ensure the human rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the victims; and c. of the right to humane treatment recognized in Article 5 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation to respect and ensure the human rights enshrined in Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of Messrs. José Antonio Monroy, Armando Amaya, and Carlos Colmenares. 6. Based on the foregoing, the Inter-American Commission requests the Court to order that the State: